tv Today in Washington CSPAN June 30, 2011 2:00am-6:00am EDT
guided by the strategy we are releasing, we will never waver in our efforts to protect the american people. we will be clear and precise about our enemy. we will use every tool at our disposal and showed them widely. we will forge strong partnerships. as americans, we will continue to uphold the core values that inspired the world and define this as a people. president obama said the best last week. rep read al qaeda here. we will not relent until the job is done. i want to thank you for allowing me to unveil president obama pose a national strategy. thank you very much.
[applause] >> mr. brennan has consented to take questions. since then the the media has frequent access, i will give priority of questions to our students, faculty, and invited guests. there is a microphone here which will come to you when you raise your hands. then please state your name and get your question. confine it to one question. >> right here. >> how long do you have? >> 30 minutes. >> good afternoon.
thank you for coming. i'm a student at george mason university. have a question about the terrace detainees. he said that the president wants to close guantanamo bay. has there been a decision made yet as to what will happen with the detainee is that there currently held there? >> it is well recognized that congress has expressed concerns about the closure of guantanamo. we have released a number of individuals from guantanamo since president obama has transfer them overseas. there has been an announcement. this will be prosecuted. with the president said is that he wants to close guantanamo responsibly.
could you give us some more detail on how you see is proceeding forward in dealing with yemen and trying to get them more effective fighting al qaeda? >> al qaeda is the most of racially active. they've been able to use yemen as a trading area to launch attacks. there is a fair amount of local turmoil right now in yemen with the president. he is still up in saudi of arabia undergoing medical treatment. he works with the yemenis. dislike and pakistan where thousands of pakistanis have fallen prey on -- just like the pakistani is where thousands
have fallen prey. they are opposed to al qaeda expanding the capabilities as well as the control. they have various tribes. one of the things we have insisted then is the support we surprise. the have a right to do it peacefully. we have been very vigilant. the counter-terrorism corporation needs to grow.
we are working very closely with a number there, a counter- terrorism balance -- the support that we provide will abuse against al qaeda and not be used in any way, shape, or form against yemeni protesters. the counter-terrorism cooperation needs to continue to grow. there are obvious limitations based on the yemeni forces capabilities. president obama has committed to yemen that we will be strong partners. receive a direct threat to the homeland. that is a very dangerous individual. the potential for the comes to the homeland is something we will have to continue work on. the framework for now we are using is to build up their counter-terrorism debilities, provide them the intelligence and information they need to prosecute their efforts, and to partner with them when it is something that we believe that we can do and it needs to be done to protect our interests. it will be a long haul.
>> good afternoon. the recent killing of osama bin laden has led many to speculate about the relationship between al qaeda and the pakistani government. can you comment on that speculation? >> to my knowledge, the pakistani leadership, military, political intelligence was caught completely unawares to find that osama bin laden was found next to its military academy and not too far from the nation's capital. they're trying to figure out why he was able to be there for six years. that is not to say that there are not elements within the pakistani establishment that were knowledgeable and provided assistance. but looking at that situation, osama bin laden and the people at that compound practiced absolutely phenomenal obtect.
to our knowledge, he was there for six years and he never left the compound. there are a couple of folks who served as his interlocutors with the outside world. this is something that -- i do not know how many people in al qaeda, in the leadership ranks, knew where he was. but he is someone who knew that, if he let it be known his whereabouts, his days would be numbered. he became then confident and relaxed in islamabad. he was taken by surprise by our brave seals. again, i have not seen anything. this is one big question we had right away. this is a question we raised to the level of the pakistani garment. what gives? but pakistan is a very large country. this is one of their lessons learned in terms of what they
need to do to be aware of what is happening in places like islamabad. it does not mean that all of these miscreants are hiding in a cave somewhere. there have been individuals in the past from al qaeda but have used this, but as a transit point. >> in the front row. >> thank you. clearly, one of our preferred tools for dealing with al qaeda is targeted killings. i understand that is perfectly legal. but is it striking how much we rely on that to include targeting some people who are american citizens?
is that problematic in a long run -- not from a legal point of view, but from a reputation point of view and what it may bring back to us from the way we imagine ourselves? >> without speaking to any particular operational activities or capabilities, let me address the question this way. first of all, from the standpoint of american citizens, when our brave u.s. military forces in afghanistan and iraq are fighting and they see that it is the taliban or hui and others who are coming at them, they do not first check to see if any of them are u.s. citizens or u.s. persons. there have been those who have been fighting your u.s. persons or citizens or whatever. these u.s. persons and citizens have made the decision to join the enemy, to fight against the united states of america.
and just what we work -- just what we're doing in places like iraq and against and, we are protecting our interests. the effort in counterterrorism is analogous. we did not pick this fight. one of the things that president obama has been insisted on is that we are exceptionally precise and surgical in terms of addressing the terrorist threat. by that i mean, if there are terrorists who are within an area where there are women and children or others, we do not take such action that might put those innocent young men and women and children in danger. the u.s. -- i can tell you about the operations that the u.s. has been involved in in the past year, there has not been a single collateral death what we try to do -- collateral death. what we tried to do is use force against those individuals who are presenting a threat to us. if they happen to be afghan citizens or pakistan citizens or those of another country,
including of our own, what we can do is allow them to hide behind their citizenship and their passports. there are certain requirements in the law, as far as if we know somebody is a citizen and we will take action against them, there are certain things we need to make sure we do, program and consistent with our legal framework. we do that in all cases. but the president is a constitutional lawyer and wants to make sure that we are following the letter of belote in these cases. >> yes, right here in the second row. >> hello, my name is tiffany store. i appreciate your speech today. what you think the ice community has learned in the last 10 years?
what are we doing with that learning experience? >> with the intelligence community has learned? >> yes. >> we were talking about where we were on 9/11 and with the enormous light. john and i were on the seventh floor of cia headquarters. at the time we get hit with those planes, we were still at a state of trying to figure out how broad, how serious the threat from al qaeda was. there were so many reports about some any different operatives, cells, box plants. we were facing the anthrax problems here as well. one of the things we have learned most from 9/11 is that we have a better handle on the al qaeda organization, where it resides. our ability to successfully prosecute over the last decade are efforts against al qaeda is because of the tremendous efforts done by intense
professionals, homeland security of officials. lives have been lost because we have been willing to take the fight to them. the cia boys were tragically killed last year, these are brave american men and women who leave their families behind so they can in fact in more information and insight into where al qaeda is so we can, in fact, direct our efforts against them so we can protect our people here. this is the testament to the tremendous work of the intelligence committee. bringing together not just the intelligence we have been able
to acquire, but then marrying it with the tremendous capabilities that we have been able to develop. on the technical front, the military front, and others. the lessons are that we know more about the nature of the threat. another thing that we have learned, the best operations i have seen in the counter- terrorism world are those involving the integration efforts of resources, of kevin willis and expertise among government agencies -- of capabilities and expertise among government agencies. for many years, i think the u.s. was trying to make sure that cia and nsa deny get in each other's way. then it was coordinating -- i will tell you what i am doing if you tell me what you are doing. now we see the u.s. military and cia and all lan security working cheek to jowl -- and homeland security working cheek to jowl. it has been a tremendous evolution of our approach to our national security challenges. that integration is something
that we need to continue to do. i am a strong believer in their departments and agencies said up in the 19th and 20th centuries which were designed for those types of problems. right now, we need to make sure that we're able to leverage the capabilities that exist throughout the government in a concerted fashion. >> you mentioned iran as a sponsor of state terrorism. what does that mean for u.s. national security? >> i think, just like al qaeda was looking at what was happening with the arab spring, i think iran was in the same thing. i think they're trying to do a couple of things.
number one, they're trying to exploit the instability in certain countries as a way to increase their contacts, their relationships, and that equities. we see that they are in fact trying to operate in different countries by establishing a relationship with groups that were out of favor six months ago and are now coming into favor. also, i think what they're trying to do is see what they can do to try to give us a black eye in certain areas. to it is clear that we are in this tug-of-war with iran and it continues to refuse to live up to its obligations. they have been affected significantly by sanctions and other measures that have been taken care is no secret that iran is trying to undermine the interests, which is to promote the development of the
democratic movements and making sure the people in these different countries are able to realize their aspirations. from my perspective, i think we need to be mindful that iran has a certain agenda. it does have certain inroads in countries that have shia populations. it tries to populate -- to operate within those communities. iran has not yet experienced its spring. hopefully, i think the people will be able to realize a democratic ferment one of these days that can really fulfil their aspirations as well. >> in the front row. >> in helping the libyan operation, how are we helping al qaeda-affiliated groups?
had we minimize that risk? >> we have been very cognizant of the fact that there have been portions within libya that have served as a base for a number of extremist organizations. there are -- we are concerned about the disarray and turmoil in libya, particularly in weapons stockpiles of have come under siege by various groups. i think the u.s. position, as was the position of our allies is that we will work deliberately with the opposition elements that have developed in the east as well as in the west. we're mindful that al qaeda and other extremist organizations are trying to tell what the situation. that is why we have to be measured in the way we deal with the bombing situation inside libya. i have traveled out to algeria and other countries in the region to talk to them about the threat of al qaeda and what we need to do together.
so we are partnering with the nations in the area, working with them, try to build up their capacity, trying to provide the intelligence they need to be able to identify these elements that are on the rise. >> in the second row. >> thank you. humans of a whole of government approached several times. please describe to us the relationship between the defense the element and the diplomacy communities in counter- terrorism. >> the defense development and diplomacy come together when you look at two particular countries -- yemen and somalia.
i reside over interagency groups that look at those two countries in -- killer because of the counter-terrorism challenge there. but i also recognize that our ability to progress is dependent on these countries being able to deal with their very, very serious problems. they have social economic problems. yemen, with this water resources that is being depleted and its oil that is being depleted, and employment probably a 40% or 50%. there are so many issues there. what we are doing is look at what we need to do on the counter terrorism front cared whether we doing any engagement with the yemeni, the saudis, and others on how to address the issues right now that are at stake in yemen could. -- in yemen. we're trying to make sure they're integrated. one of the challenges we have now and one of the debates that is ongoing is that, in light of the instability in yemen, should we not stop this assistance that is going to them because it could get to the
wrong hands? to me, i think it is important -- president saleh is now in saudi arabia some are criticizing us for being only interested in counterterrorism. it is not true. the people of yemen have been terrorized by the many problems they face. we are concerned with al qaeda, but this is the time we make sure we do not abandon the yemeni people, whether government is under siege -- when their government is under siege. we need to make sure that we bring together that diplomacy, the development assistance, and the counter-terrorism efforts.
the same is true in somalia. looking in all the refugees and the people who are miller stands start, we need to find ways for the non-criminal organizations to get in there and bring relief supplies. a lot of the means we have, we say, okay, we want to make sure that these ngo's have the licensing approvals to operate their. -- to operate there. i have said that i do not want the counter terrorism tail to wag the dog. we should not be doing things in yemen or somalia solely because we have a counter terrorism agenda there. one of the things about president obama and president bush before him is making sure that we do things that will benefit in the long term these people in these areas. because these groups strive off of the instability.
there are very legitimate grievances. we need to be able to work with local communities that are out there, governments and interest groups to deal with those issues. >> front row here. >> do you worry that public support for the war on terrorism will wane over time with the domestic problems we have, the economy, the debt, and the sense that killing osama bin laden as turned the page on war? >> we intensely do not use the term "war on terrorism." we are at war with al qaeda. i think there is a concern that there are some folks out there who believe that, because we have not suffered a spectacular
attack at the hands of al qaeda in the past decade that the threat is not as serious and grave. they keep talking about our successes and that we're taking a lot of these leaders of the battlefield. that may be a perception that some folks in the american public have. if you were to bolster the counter-terrorism community throughout the government and other areas, they see real threats still out there. coming up on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 -- we want to make sure we are as vigilant and poised to detect and force these attacks. working with congress, do
nothing there's any illusion within those folks that this is an effort that we need to maintain. i would like to think that, over time, we would be more efficient on how we apply our resources, knowing more about the threat. and maybe automate more of these activities. we have come such a long way as a result of technology and integrating the different databases and systems, we have been able to do things with less people who actually have to manually put things in. i want to make sure we are able to maintain the appropriate amount of resources so we continue to prosecute these suffers who help us to detect these threats and beat brazil and can but also maintain our ability -- maintain our pride to posture. if we're relend to this point, we want al qaeda to regenerate in certain areas. that core group is still out there. >> second row here. >> i was wondering how you think the drawdown in afghanistan will shift from a counter resume -- a counter-terrorism posture?
>> we have a long-term bull in that area, which is to make sure we are able to maintain very deep, strong, and brought counter-terrorism ties with pakistan and afghanistan. when we talk about it, we talk about the afghan-pak fear. the that architecture involves sources of that we have, both technical and human. it involves partnership with the pakistanis and the afghans. it is having the ability to
make sure that there will be dialogue and cooperation between pakistan and a afghanistan. that border area leverage for the purposes into the borders of pakistan and afghanistan. drawing down 10,000 troops this year and drawing down the full surge by next summer, that will not affect our ability to continue our counter-terrorism efforts. what the president looks to me and others to do is to ensure that, as we look out over the next several years, hopefully before 2014, that we can ensure that we keep in place the capabilities, the architecture, the resources, the platforms that will allow us to ensure that that area it will never again be used as a launching pad for attacks against the homeland. there is no alternative to us or to the pakistanis to ensure
that we continue engagement. it is frustrating. but at the same time, no other country have we taken as many terrorists of the battlefield then in pakistan. no other country has lost more security and intelligence officers then pakistan. yes, we have frustrations with them, but, at the same time, they are on the front lines. they give their lives everyday. i am very appreciative of the efforts that they have made. >> our media colleagues have been very patient. let me go to the third broker >> -- the third row. >> i appreciate your last statement. if you read pakistani media, you get a very different picture. it says that there was not a single suicide attack before we got involved with the part of the world cared after that, --
the reason [unintelligible] people are so angry and we think that somehow pakistani lives are not important. but -- >> do you have a question? >> how can you really address these issues without addressing the common pakistanis concerns? but my concern is that there is a real cancer within pakistan among terrorist organizations. there is a general recognition in the united states as well as throughout the world that pakistan has a real challenge
ahead of it to uproot and eradicate the forces of militancy within pakistan. i think the pakistani people have to be very honest with the challenges that they faced domestically. if is an area that has served as a training ground, as a launching pad to carry out attacks. but not just against other countries and the united states, but against pakistanis. men, women and children on a daily basis are being horribly murdered by these attacks, by these suicide attacks. these are homicide attacks. they killed and scores. a really do hope that the pakistani government and all these institutions will become even more aggressive in taking the battle to these forces of militancy and terrorism.
>> i am looking at the big picture in the decade since 9/11. what do you see the top factors in denying al qaeda success in attacking the homeland over the past 10 years? >> one is that i think we have made the united states a much less hospitable environment for al qaeda. it is much more difficult for them to move operatives here appeared the fbi, homeland security, the local law enforcement have done a great job at the ticket activities within our 50 states.
they really have done a tremendous job. secondly, taking the war terrell qaeda, not just sitting back here and trying to protect ourselves -- taking the war to al qaeda, not just sitting back here and try to protect ourselves. trying to dismantle and destroy the organization. it is clear from the material recovered from the compound of osama bin laden that he was aware that they were in trouble. he was frustrated that the commanders were not carrying out attacks. commanders were saying, we would love to do it, but we cannot. your aspirations outpaced our capabilities. the fact that we have degraded the threat, we have addressed the bomber bill is. we have improved the capabilities of the foreign governments. it is a combination of things that have contributed to making this country safer. looking out the next 10 years, we will continue to strengthen our capabilities and to brave the threats and improve our defenses and reduce our vulnerability.
>> we have time for one more question. james man. >> u.s. heard an excellent question before about iran's interest in the arab spring. that begs the follow-up question about saudi arabia. its reactions to the air spring and whether this agreements have come up north things like mubarak and if it has affected the field of counter-terrorism. >> i have spent about six years in saudi arabia. i was there in the late 1990's. in many respects, it was frustrating for me, not just
because the saudis were unwilling to be more aggressive. but it was because our government was unwilling to be more forthcoming with the saudis. the saudis went through time in 2003 when there was basically a campaign by al qaeda to carry out attacks against the saudis from within. it became very personalized for the saudis. a lot of their intelligence security officers were brutally killed by al qaeda. they took it very much to heart. since then, saudi arabia has developed capabilities and it is one of the best counter- terrorism partners that the united states has.
they recognized that there was a cancer within their house and they recognized and when i talk to them, they said they were too late in coming to this game. when i think about the question on pakistan, i am hoping that the pakistani people and services will realize that this really is a war. the saudis had to fight that war for several years. right now, i think it really is a testament to how far we have come since 9/11. when it concealed the ied's and the printers on the cargo craft, they would have taken down those airplanes if we did not have the information from the saudis. i was giving a speech here in washington and i got a call from the assistant deputy minister of interior in saudi arabia. he needed to speak to me urgently. a call them back. sure enough, he give me the information that had been passed through other channels as well that provided the details about where those ied's were, what package, and we were able to locate them before they were timed to go off. that save lives, without a doubt. if the saudis did not provide us that information, we would have aircraft coming down out of the
air, possibly over the united states. the investment we have made with our counter-terrorism partners, saudi arabia is a good example. collected think that, over the next 10 years, we will have other stories but what has happened with saudi arabia, that things will really turn around, that the situation of terrorism in these countries and within pakistan that we will sort of get ahead of the curve. but it will still be a long and sometimes difficult battle. again, i want to say thank you to everybody here for being so polite and patient. the questions were rather -- i don't to save saw walls, but -- [laughter] i was ready for something to come out that would be more challenging. i appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today and the strategy that this president has put out.
i will say again that people like john mclaughlin and the students that you have taught, the people that are working within the intelligence community really have done just a spectacular job and a lot of credit goes to you, john, and others who have helped the next generation of intelligence professionals and national security experts to contribute to this nation's security current so thank you very much. >> please think john brennan. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]
>> and scott whitaker of the biotechnology industry. it begins live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. it used to be that we did not release transcripts of argument. now we release them within an hour. it used to be they were released at the end of the term. now it is the end of every week. we are moving in a particular direction. these prison all sorts of challenges. >> right now, watch the chief
justice and his latest comments. also, american history television from our local television. >> they have a diplomatic security said today that they are engaged in marathon planning. they will be responsible for protecting roughly 70,000 diplomats and others. then eric boswell is joining to with the committee hearing. this is just under two hours.
>> i called this hearing in federal work force. i will call this to order. i want to say a lot -- say aloha and welcome pawlenty and thank you so much for being here today with us. this protects employees worldwide. this will build on the hearing. there is a government accountability office with a review of diplomatic security
trading challenges. since the 1998 bombing, the bureau has had a mission that has expanded a dramatically. it is to meet the evolving security needs. with our military planning, diplomatic security boldface an unprecedented challenge. the bureau will be responsible for many security functions now performed by the military such as providing the explosive devices from defending a u.s. post from modern attacks. the bureau is expected to implement a state department recommendation to provide hype
threat awareness training to all employees in posts. this would require them to train 10,000 employees per year. the responsibilities will continue to expand. as we deploy more civilian employees. it is very critical that diplomatic security has the training and resources and support needed to protect them
the government accountability office report released today makes clear that ds is doing a remarkable job preparing its people to provide robust security in an unpredictable environment, but i do want to highlight a major concern. gao's report finds that diplomatic security training facilities are inadequate. the bureau is using 16 different borrowed facilities. i some of these sites, the training means art -- at some of the sites, the training means are not a priority. some facilities are too small or in need of repair. although the bureau is in the process of selecting a site to build a consolidated training facility, this will take years
to complete. another significant concern that i have, which i asked the bureau to address today, is how it overseas its large contracted work force. it grows increasingly reliant on contract staff. contractors make up about 90% of the total workforce. this requires the bureau to train its work force in contract oversight in addition to physical and personal security. the 2007 blackwater shooting
that killed 17 iraqi civilians, while protecting a state convoy, it reminds us that ds contractors must be held to the highest standards for training and accountability because the stakes are tremendously high. i also look forward to hearing about what steps of the bureau has taken to address key issues raised at the subcommittee's 2009 hearing. i am particularly interested in the progress addressing language proficiency shortfalls and staffing gaps, balancing the need to provide strong security with carrying out the diplomatic mission, and improving its strategic planning, which is important for targeting limited resources in this budget climate.
i know that the ambassador and his team are working hard to address these challenges. i look forward to hearing about the efforts as well as discussing ways we can work together to move forward. thank you are witnesses for being here today to discuss these critical issues. i look forward to hearing from our first panel of witnesses and welcome them here today. ambassador, the assistant secretary of state of diplomatic security, the director of international affairs and trade at the government accountability office.
i understand that mr. ford is retiring on friday after 38 years of federal service. this'll be his last time testifying before the subcommittee. over the years, mr. ford has done extensive work on improving state department operations and management of the embassies. we will certainly miss him. the gao informed us that you have testified before the subcommittee more than any other staffer. this subcommittee has placed great value and trust in your work and it is with great appreciation that i say thank you very much for your gears a valuable service. i wish you success in your
future endeavors. as you know, it is the custom of this subcommittee to swear in all witnesses. i ask both of you to stand and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give the subcommittee is the truth, the whole tree, and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. let it be noted that the witness's answer is in the affirmative. you're full written statements will be made a part of the records and i would like to remind you to please limit your remarks to five minutes. ambassador, it is always good to have you.
please proceed with your statement. >> thank you, senator. i am honored to have appeared before you today. i would like to thank you and the committee members for your continued support and interest. this support enables diplomatic security to safeguard american diplomats and facilities while maintaining our robust programs, which serve to protect the u.s. borders. the training program is at the heart of our readiness to fulfil these missions. would your permission, i will make a brief statement.
as i have stated before this committee in the past, ds continues to provide the most secure environment possible. i must reiterate that the scope and scale of our responsibility and authorities have grown immensely in response to emerging threats and security incidents. resources are necessary if we are to meet the requirement of securing a diplomatic facilities in iraq, pakistan, sudan, yemen, mexico, and other dangerous locations worldwide. the department now operates diplomatic missions and places in the past we would likely closed the post and evacuated all personnel. however, the need to conduct diplomacy in the post-9/11 environment is essential to our nation's security. to me are challenges, personnel and resources have grown and evolved. we are engaged in a recruitment campaign. we have increased or outreach to colleges and universities. as a result of more ambitious recruitment efforts, we have reduced our vacancy rate. and this expansion has changed
the requirements for training our people. training has progressed tremendously in the past several years. the review of training that accurately reflects the success of our training directorate despite the challenges we face. to ensure that the personnel we deploy our highly qualified, we evaluate our training programs. by incorporating student feedback, we can offer the highest quality instruction. this evaluation process helps to verify that the training offered is relevant to the new realities of the department's mission. it ensures that personnel are prepared to assume increasing security responsibilities in challenging environments. however, existing training facilities and resources are now at maximum stated capacity. a new foreign affairs security training center would expand and improve the delivery of training for u.s. government employees. personnel serving in contingency zones must only be trained and prepared to assume the increasing security responsibilities, but also have the necessary support services available both during and after their assignment. the department fully realizes that when one of its employees
serves in a high threat environment, the whole family serves with him or her. a full array of services is available to the personnel and their families. i want to assure the committee that we are paying attention to all personnel who have been or could be affected by ptsd. the department uses private security contractors to assist in meeting security staffing requirements. as a result of operational changes already implemented, the department is able to provide proper management, oversight, and operational control.
the worldwide protective services contract awarded in september 2010 inc. essential lessons learned to ensure that they perform their activities in a responsible and professional, culturally sensitive manner. we must continue to develop the personnel who can think creatively, who can speak the language, who can work closely with their embassy colleagues to succeed without sacrificing safety and security. i want to assure the committee backed we are -- that are fully prepared to provide a secure environment to meet the challenging diplomatic responsibilities we face in this
ever-changing world. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. we will ensure that the diplomatic security remains a valuable and effective resource for protecting our people and information and the structure are around the world. >> thank you very much, ambassador, for your statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start by thanking you for your kind comments regarding my lengthy career at gao. 38 years is a long time. i am looking forward to ramp parliament -- looking forward to retirement. my testimony is based on our report, which is being released today. diplomatic security is responsible for the protection of people, information, and property at over 400 embassies. they have expanded the mission and they have had significant growth in their budget and personnel over the last decade. diplomatic security trains its work force and others to address a variety of threats, including crime, espionage,
passport fraud, technological intrusions, political violence, and terrorism. to meet its training needs, and diplomatic security relies primarily on its training center. it is the primary provider of diplomatic security training activities. the training budget has grown steadily from fiscal year 2006 to 2010 from approximately $24
million to $70 million. today, i will talk a little bit about two main issues in our report. i will talk a little bit about the challenges currently facing diplomatic security. we reported that we have had to meet the challenge of training more personnel to perform additional duties while still getting its agents, engineers, technicians, and other staff into the field where they're needed. we have largely met this challenge by maintaining high standards for training, specifically, incorporating federal law enforcement training accreditation standards into its operational -- operating standards.
certain issues have constrained the effectiveness of some training activities. in our report, we noted that ds lacks a comprehensive system to evaluate some of its online training. we said that ds d.s.l. has not been able to accurately track the overall training on all the people to take training. this is an issue with non-state staff who have been trained in certain courses that are required when they are stationed overseas in dangerous locations. we made a couple of recommendations to improve this systems and the state has agreed that both of them. our report also identifies other challenges facing ds. ds must train diplomatic security personnel to perform new missions in iraq.
as they take over responsibility. ds has had little or no experience in driving certain types of training that the military is currently responsible for. because of this increase security responsibility, we anticipate that it will have to rely heavily on contractors to carry out these types of responsibilities. ds officials noted that the additional training that will be needed and will likely increase their need to put more people into the field. any delay in finalizing state expanded mission in iraq could also affect the ability to develop and deliver any types of additional training. a second major challenge that we identified has to do with
increasing requirement laid out in the state department diplomacy and development review. the review calls forced -- for ds to significantly increase training at a more critical posts. they would have to increase training from 23 to 178 posts. the number of students could increase to 10,000. this could have significant implications in terms of the budget and training requirements.
johnson, president of the american foreign services association. it is a custom to swear in our witnesses. would you please rise and raise your right hand? do you formally swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you. the witness answered in the affirmative. before we start, i want you to know that your full statement will be made part of the record and i would also like you to limit your remarks to five minutes. please proceed with your statement. >> [inaudible] welcomes the opportunity to
speak before the subcommittee on the subject of diplomatic security and its implications for u.s. diplomacy. let me say at the outset that the diplomatic security agencies the idea that the privilege to work with have been highly professional and competent. we have high regard for the dedication of ds. in an increasingly complex and dangerous global environment in which foreign policy and foreign rvice are required to operate as our natn's first line of defense, then need to ensure the safety and security of our foreign service personnel cannot be overemphasized. the challenge, since particular gravity would be expanding requirements for missions, personnel, and programs in conflict zones. the june 2011 government accountability report on diplomatic security and critical challenges to its training efforts identified some
weaknesses or gaps and the structure and substance of diplomatic security training. recommended at the department of state enhanced diplomatic security and training and develop an action plan to address the proposed increases in high-priced training. it is not clear to us whether the current training programs are well designed to meet the challenges of the expanded mission, especially in iraq, whether diplomatic security will have the flexibility it needs to deal with poorly performing security contracts or other problems and to respond quickly ancreatively to unpredictable developments or new situations on the ground. the january report on iraq addresses the challenges of this expanded mission. given the unprecedentedize and complexity of the diplomatic mission in iraq, the report
raises questions about the availability of resources and whether the mission in iraq can be implemented without the support of the u.s. military. in addition, the recent report on the department of state planning notes that while at the effective planning mechanisms are in place, key decisions remain unresolved and some plans are not finalized. it also points to the problem added security environment, a port contractor performance, and iraqi gernment reluctant at all levels to assume responsibility for reconstruction program. we do not have sufficient information about the scope of the u.s. missn in iraq. it is our responsibility to seek answers to many of the fundamental questions that have been raised. according to figures, the total
number of diplomatic security agents deployed worldwide is about 720. does ds have adequate resources and numbers to manage the contractors worldwide? as u.s. forces drawdown in iraq, does the transition plan a sam that the iraqi government and its military forces are ready to support and protect the u.s. civilian mission? given that decemr 31, 2011, it is a hard deadline for withdrawal of all u.s. forces, it -- is it adequate prepared? are the training standards sufficient to meet the risks and dangers in iraq? is the content of training before agents and other foreign service personnel?
s the iraq transition plan's elements correctly balanced? is this planet realistic and sustainable? if so, are the preparations in place? e american foreign service has a long and honorable tradition of serving wherever and whenever it is called upon to do so, what ever the conditions. however, our political and leadership are responsible for providing security for those we sent into harm's way. we hope that the subcommittee will examine the plan closely and ask hard questions about the assumpons upon which is based. i would like to thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. we greatly value your longstanding support. thank you, sir. >> thank you very much.
mrs. johnson, as the military withdraws from iraq and afghanistan, ds will provide an unprecedented level of security and protective services that the military is performing now. u raised concerns about whether the mission is compatible with the resources available. my question for you is, what resources on personnel are needed, and what more should state be doing to prepare to effectively address the security environment?
>> thank you for that question, sir. the state department is doing its best to provide -- the plan and prepare for the uncertainties in iraq and afghanistan and have undertaken a planning effort. that said, because of these uncertaintie at home and on the ground in iraq and afghanistan, afsa is concerned in two broad areas, and you have asked questions about them, and they have been addressed already. one of them is in the area of contracting and indeed for more aining across the training across the board in all foreign affairs agencies, not just an oversight, but from negotiating initial contracts to maning and overseeing them, and not just for ds, but for other parts of the state department which
would be responsible for managing contract for life support systems and oer things we are now contracting out when we undertake missions of this size and scope and complexity. as has been noted, followed in the press in many reports, there have been a number of weaknesses identified in contacting overall and performance, so we believe a great deal more training has to take place in this area, but that calls for resources, and that gets us back to the problem that we have focused in on. another area that we think is important would-be contingency planning in the event that the host government cannot or will not deliver as expected, and are --. in our planning for iraq, we're expecting iraqi's vermont to provide a number of functions that the u.s. military provided
in the past and ds said they will not bendertaking. what happens if the iraqi government cannot or will deliver those services? what is our plan b? >> let me follow up with this question. do you believe all the tasks being transferred from the u.s. law enforcements and security corps in other words, are their tasks that ds being asked to undertake that should be performed by non- combat military troops? >> i was pleased to hear assistant secretary boswell testify about some of the things that ds is doing to meet the requirements of this vastly expanded mission, and i give
them all credit for the efforts they are making. however, afsa would like to hear more open discussion about the pros and cons and the implications of the state department taking on security responsibilities for large-scale civilian diplomatic and the feldman missions in conflict zones. ricketts abilities of the host government remained unclear. we think this is in an area that needs have more attention, so we welcome your efforts and those areas, and those in other parts of congress and other organizations to look at this question. we have a related question, what is -- which is not us, and that relates to, what specific tasks that the u.s. military was performing at ds will not be performing? do we now expect the iraqi government to perform?
do we believe that they are willing and able to do so, and if so, on wh evidence do we base that belief? that is a question that we have that we would like to see and hear answers to. >> yes. well -- >> the short answer is i do not know, but we are a little bit skeptical and we would like to be reassured. >> yes, well, i hope we do get reassured since. ms. johnson, the state department is operating in extremely complex and dangerous environments, situations where in the past state department would have to evacuate td. what additional steps should ds take to make sure it is well- positioned to meet current and future training needs for
devolving security situations? t from afsa's press ahead, elements. when the meat gao and your committee has focused on for some time, which is the nd more and better strategic planning by the state department as a whole and by its various sub elements, if you want to put it that way. we certainly support that and would like to see it. for that reason, we welcome secretary clinton's the initiative, and we hope now that we have been to the first iteration of that process that will continue to be refined and adjust it and provide a framework for better and more consistent strategic planning as a whole, freeing its various
parts of more into stocks -- synchronize the better. to do all this, at a big part of this is that we need the resources that the people required, and we need more and better training. training looking over the horizon. that means a training flight. when we talk about training and we have policies that put forward training objectives, but if we do not have the personnel are required for a training flight, which would allow us to free up, send people the trading without negatively impacting this vancy rates of other things you're mentioning and on real needs in the field, a great deal of that training is not happen. the other part of that, and that vision t afloat,s there are training and professional education needs to be tied more closely to assignment and
promotion. there have to be real incentives built in, real requirements built in for people to do training. it comes back to a resource question, and we have talked about the very tight fiscal financial and resource environment that we are in. it is a challenge. >> yes. ms. johnson, gao's report identified the challenges of bouncing security state's diplomatic mission. do you believe progress has been made to achieve this balance >> i think the security mission balance issue is and has been a very important one for afsa, and the issue goes far beyond ds
itself. they are only one party involved in finding this bance. security, a i think they try to lay out what their needs and requirements are. diplomatic leadership needs to address a diplomatic goals and what is or is not achievable under different levels of security constraints. be realistic and open about this. so the qddr has identified a security mission balance as an issue that needs more attention and discussion. we have not yet seen that process to get underway, or if it has, we have not been privy to it. it remains a continuingssue of concern for afsa, and we are not convinced that the right balance has been aieved yet. on, as ds servers
and more conflict zones, state must be able to address the rest of posttraumatic stress disorder and other challenges associated hazardous, high-stress tours of duty. what steps should stay to support ds offices toeturn from services at the height-risk posts? >> that is a discount -- a difficult question, and i am glad he asked it, and i defer to secretary boswe on some of the things that ds is doing. i know steve is aware of this problem, not jt for agents, but for other service personnel serving repeatedly in high- threat posed said. it is not easy to resolve. all our people are exposed to danger. so far, with the exception of
the mandatory outbrief, it depends on the individual. it is up to the individual to voluntarily seek out help, and th means some do, but many do not, for various reasons. in particular, for ds agents, the perceived cost of doing so in seeking out health may be high, such as the suspension or temporary suspension of their credentials, there leave pay, and other things. there may be a number of building in reasons people are reluctant to seek out the help, but the department, as and besser bonds will mention, ds has a support group, and we welcome that and amend it. the department has an active employee counseling service and a contract life care to provide a range of support services for all state department personnel. we areenturing into new territory here, and i think we
are trying to export, together with other elements of our federal government, military, national guard, what is the answer to help can these problems be addressed. >> ms. johnson, families of ds officers employed decoy to dangers locations face stress and hardships associated with having a loved one in harm's way. what should state provide the support the families of officers deployed to high-threat posts? >> all of our people and members exposed to dangerous, and when it comes the department support for families who are very much affected by this, we believe that all families should
have access to the sam support. as i mentioned earlier, the department is well aware of this anis trying to grapple with this. i think the fundamental issue right now is to find a way of encouraging more people to voluntarily reach out. there may be some ways that the department could get the resources to proactively reaching out to families as well as employees, at least to offer them counseling or other services that might help them cope with the hardships and dangers and the stresses involved with these kinds of situations. we would favor that, if the department could do that, but we do not have the answer to that. we would like to see and i believe we a working with the department to come up with effective ways of providing
support for people who are under stress from service in high- threat posts. >> ms. johnson, would you like to provide in the final cost on what we have discussed? >> tre is one element i have mentioned, i will just off another thought on it, and it has to do with more flexibility for ds to deal with unforeseen circumstances that might arise. i think this is coming from our sense, as we have watched this over the years for our military as well as diplomatic personnel, that when called upon to operate in uncertain, and dangerous, i-risk environment, july agility and flexibility
is essential. we are not clear on what short- term options ds as if a contractor who is providing critical security is not performing. then i suppose the iraq government is plan b. what if that is not fthcoming the military at a depth of resources for emergencies that it to call on, but in this new situation, that might not be there. what is the plan? >> yes. well, these are some of the challenges that we have to work on on this -- and the whole effort here is to try to determine weaknesses that we can strengthen, and hopefully help
our mission. and as has been continually mentioned, so many changes have en coming about, so many things are uncertain said that in our planning and strategic plan in we have to have a b and c plans to deal with possible differences. bmi yes, sir. >> and probably that is one way to move on in continuing to provide the security that our state people need as well. so i appreciate you, ms. johnson, and your work. the reason why we wanted to hear
from you is to hear from those who have had experience in this area and who may see it from a different view and give us a different slant of possible solutions that may help us in providing security our country needs. so i thank you very much for being here and helping us with your valuable information and the forward to continuing to work with you. >> thank you, sir, and we appreciate the opportunity to, as you say, bring a different perspective because our perspective is from where we sit each of us, and we are seeing a different angle on this, and we think both are valuable to you.
certainly we appreciate the work q&a your committee are dng, and your staff. >> thank you very much. would like to thank you and our other witnesses here. it is clear to me thathe diplomatic security bureau has made great progress in meeting the demands of its expanding responsible of these. hover, or work remains. many of the concerns and recommendations discussed today depend on making sure resources provided to ds matched the scope of the vital mission. the success of u.s. foreign policy and the lives of the brave men and women who promote it in some of the world's most dangerous places depends on
robust diplomatic security, committed to working with state and stakeholders like afsa to enhance a diplomatic security -- and we hope we can provide some solutions to these uncertainties. the hearing record will be open for two weeks for additional statements or questions of the members. so this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we do have -- at 11:00 and that is very disconcerting to me. they failed to check with me about the convenience of the committee so i will do the best i can. i'm going to ask these fairly quickly. commissioner brill. as you know, senator pry major and i have addressed -- what are your thoughts on this bill
quickly? >> strong federal -- the commission supports strong, federal legislation dealing with data security and breach notification just like this bill and this bill does satisfy the requirements of such a strong, protective bill. >> thank you. our bill gives the federal trade commission rule-making authority for companys with large databases to protect consumer data. do you think companies are doing enough to maximize protection of their databases? >> companies can do more. we have brought many cases. we have investigated many more. we are not seeing case s that areclose calls. these are -- that are close calls. they are sometimes not even following their own security procedures. so yes, companies can definitely do more in the area of data
security. >> thank you. taking enforcement action against companies like twitter for not adequately securing consumer information. can you talk about your existing enforcement efforts? >> it will complement our efforts very well. not only does it set forth some basic security processes and procedures like having an officer focused on privacy, having within companies a process to deal with security and having in place processes to deal with security but it also gives us broad rule-making authority. mostly i think from my perspective, it gives us civil authority to have companies improve their security practices before they ever have to deal with us. >> thank you. you're going to keep your building.
don't worry about it. >> thank you. >> the department of commerce calls for a national data security legislation. do you have any opinions on the bill senator pryor and i have introduced? >> it responds to the need for national legislation. one of the important drivers in the area of privacy is adoption of breach notification laws. there are now some 47 states that have them, but in order to make those consistent and to drive the issue nationally, there is a need for national data breach notification laws. it is part of the administration's cybersecurity package. i thank you senator for your leadership in helping to drive that issue. >> thank you, sir.
commissioner brill? how does the f.t.c. work with the department of justice on data security issues under current law? >> generally speaking -- >> i'm not finished. do you have a good working relationship that adequately furthers the public interest in prosecuting criminals or do we need to grant more authority? >> it is important for the department of justice to have all the tools that it needs to go after folks who are hacking into databases and to the extent they feel they need more tools, we obviously would support that, but at the same time, it is critically important to recognize that we're never going to be able to catch all the criminals and hackers. it is critically important and what your bill does very well is it ensures companies are going to shore up their data protection practices in the first instance so they are not affected by hacks. that's why we appreciate your
bill and what it does, especially in incentivizing companies to have good, strong programs in place with the civil penalty provision. >> many companies are already offering consumers the ability to use web browsers that have to not track mechanisms on them. however when consumers use this feature, no one is honoring this request except for one company which would happen to be the associated press. as of now, do you think the f.t.c. can take action against consumers who do not honor a consumer's do not track request? >> if a company promises to honor a consumer's request or an ad network promises to honor a consumer's request, then we can proceed fairly easily if they
breached that promise. but if a company does not make a promise to adhere to a consumer's request, then a jurisdictional test is a little bit more difficult to meet. we fall under an unfairness jurisdiction and there are some challenges on meeting that type of a test. it would depend on the facts and circumstances. >> thank you. senator kerry? >> thank you, senator rockefeller. i was struck by -- i think it is important if some of those questions being raised, it is really important that they be addressed here. i wasn't planning to, but i want to use the time because we got a problem here in trying to get a general consensus to try to pass legislation if there is not a baseline level of understanding or acceptance. toomey is at another hearing but i want to record to at least
reflect the answers to this and i know his staff will help make sure that he sees them. he stated very clearly the question -- he raised the question whether or not this is a solution in search of a problem and in addition wondering what the harm is out there. i think it is really important for the three of you to address that very directly. what is the harm? is there harm or isn't there harm? is this worth a national response? is it imperative to have a national response? if so, can one be constructed without the unintended consequences? i've been on this committee for a long time now and i have fought diligently to protect the open architecture. do all the things necessary but i do believe that it is imperative to have some kind of standard by which people are acting here. so i want to begin with you, commissioner brill, since your
end that practice. our national broadband plan looks beyond the harm to individuals and the harm to the committee. consumers don't understand and trust rules for privacy protection that are built into the system. then the adoption by consumers, the deployment by network operators, broadband technologies will be harmed. we saw this again in our location-based service forum yesterday. where consumer groups and industry agreed that there is a need for clear rules of the road so that there will be an ability and a willingness to use these services for the benefit of consumers as well as industry. >> all right. senator, let me say that our support for legislation comes from an extensive exchange with
members of the public and members of the business community who broadly across a spectrum of the business community retail industries as well as technology industries and as well as companies engaged in international trade said to us that there was a need for -- for government action and privacy protection and it has been -- it is unusual for a government agency to propose regulation and to have a wide spectrum of the business community as well as consumers and others endorse that proposal. but that is precisely what occurred when we put out the commerce green paper in december. i think what that stems from is the critical need for trust in this sector. let me tell you the story of a policy conference that i participated in a couple of
years ago. the spectrum of people from business to governments, academia. people across the political spectrum. identifying key risks and key drives in the development of broadband. working in four separate groups, looking at scenarios, every single one of them came up with the same risks and the same drives. every single one of them independently framed it in the same way as trust. i think if we look today at the wave of breaches that -- that senator rockefeller alluded to, we are facing a higher risk scenario, which trust is eroding. there are a lot of companies that have good practices but understand the ordinance of trust to their business models, their survival.
there are malicious actors and outliers there who exploit that trust. >> thank you, senator. senator wicker? >> i'm going to yield my time. i hope we are able to get to the second panel before the series of seven votes begins. >> we won't but we're coming back. we have no choice. >> i understand that and i yield my time. >> all right. then senator ayotte. >> thank you, mr. chairman . mr. kerry, i understand that the department of commerce has led this international policy task force. but could you also explain for us what the role of the department of commerce would be? do you envision any enforcement rule going forward? obviously it is pretty clear as to what the f.t.c.'s role is in
this. >> the f.t.c. is a critical policy maker and the nation's enforcement authority over a broad area other than specific regimes like communications, like health records. and we believe that that role should be strengthened. the role of the department of commerce is as a convener. as a policy leader for the executive branch. it is important that the executive branch have a voice in the process. that we be part of the debate as we are here today. but we have worked closely with the f.t.c. in developing policy in this area. wl continue to do so.
>> thank you. commissioner brill, i wanted to follow up on -- i know you share a history at -- with the attorney general of vermont. welcome. >> thank you. >> i wanted to ask about the enforcement piece, for example, the proposal for a do not track legislation. particularly where we get on areas where we're focused particularly on a kind of technology, given the changes that we can see happen in the technology field, a, how would you anticipate that -- the enforbesment mechanism would work for a do not track registry and secondly, do you have a way for it to take away some of the tools that consumers have? there have been some studies that show this could harm online advertising. i wanted to get your thoughts on
those two issues. >> sure. just to be clear senator ayotte. it would not be a registry. it is a technology-driven solution that would be through advertisers themselves. in terms of enforcement, what we do want to see a strong enforcement component whether it becomes a mechanism or a mechanism set up by industry itself or whether it gets set up through legislation. the key component in an enforcement mechanism is that those who receive the messages from consumers about the choices that they are making will honor them. once we are assured either through a self-regulatory mechanism or legislation, that a receipt or a cookie or whatever the technology is, when it receives that message, they promise they will honor it. then they have an enforcement
tool. it is something we expect to see in the industry. the other point, there has been a discussion about whether or not an overwhelming number of consumers would participate in their -- and drive away the free content that is currently available on the web. my view is that actually what will happen is consumers will have much more trust in what's happening on the internet if they understand that the choice is available to them to make granular choices about what will happen with their information, how it will be used and collected. i actually don't expect that we'll see a whole lot of consumers opting into the system, choosing to participate. but what it will do is it will give, engender a huge amount of trust which i think will actually cause the industry to
thrive even more. i think that is critical performance point here that i haven't heard a lot of discussion about. >> in terms of issues, for example, a do not track issue, you envision this could be something implemented by industry opposed to congress coming up with it. one of the things i see is for us to come up with a solution that will work in application is a very difficult task and often we are not the best ones to come up with those solutions. >> it can be done by industry and we have called a -- a majority of the commissioners have called on the industry to come up to the plate. i have been particularly vocal. i think it has been slow. we started to make these calls, to do something with respect to online video advertising several years ago.
since we started making a specific call for do not track, industry has moved and there has been significant progress on the part of industry. i am worried, though, that we might not be able to get all the way there because over the way the industry is structured. advertisers and ad networks are rather disparate and there are lots of them. unless we get them to uniformly agree, they are going participate in a consumer's request, i'm just unis that your the regulatory mechanism will work. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. we -- before i go to senator klobucher, we have a major problem to work out here. there are five votes that are starting at 11:05. i'm trying to get it moved to
11:10, which means we could spend another 15 minutes here. we have another panel. we have senator klobucher and pryor has just walked in. now you can decide what you want to do. my recommendation would be that senator klobucher, you ask the question because you have been here a while. senator pryor, subcommittee all over this. somebody has to sacrifice. i think what we need to do is let senator klobucher ask the question quickly and then we call up the other panelists and let them give their testimony and then we submit questions to them in writing and then all scramble to get to the senate floor to vote on heaven know's what. is that acceptable? >> ready to go. thank you very much, mr. chairman .
consumers about the way in which geolocation is used. it is a tougher test. >> ok. back to the children's issue. under the children's online privacy protection act. companies operating websites intended for children under 13 are prohibited from collecting the information. i just wonder if there is a practical line and i believe that is a good provision but is there any practical way for the f.t.c. to distinguish between websites and online services for children? they need to comply with this law versus applications for adults? >> sure. the children's privacy protection act applies when you a website that is either directed at kids or where the website knows that it is collecting information about kids, and by kids, it is kids under 13. in order to determine whether a website is directed at children, we really look at to tality of
the circumstances. so we'll look at things like are there cartoons being used? we'll look at issues in mobile space, where is the application being sold or how is it being sold? is it part of the apps store designed for kids or a different part of the apps store? those are what we will look at. in terms of whether or not the general audience website or application is collecting information about children, you know, if the website actually receives information from a teacher or a parent, that there is a particular kid involved obviously then they know. but we also do undercover work. we'll go online and pretend we're 13 or 12 or 11 and see if the website will collect information about us. there are a number of ways we can figure out what's happening. >> ok. one last question to mr. kerry. i've been working on this cloud computing bill as you know.
i was -- one of the issues here is that we are trading partners internationally and i think we have talked about this before in judiciary but they need to establish privacy and security standards along with working with our allies do you believe it would be prudent to establish a global standard that all countries would voluntarily subscribe to? >> that is a question that we need to -- senator klobucher, what we are trying to do is establish global interopera billity so that companies can trade and design transparently in different locations in the cloud. so to try to bring global privacy standards closer together is an important part of our support of comprehensive legislation. >> thank you.
we're now on this rather quickened pace. i thank all three of you very much. i want to introduce senator begich. i'll explain this to you on the way to a vote how you have been abused. the second panel are mr. scott taylor. vice president of hewlett packard. stuart pratt. miss ioana rusu, regulatory council of consumers union. mr. tim schaaf, president of sony network entertainment international and mr. thomas lenard. once again, our purpose here will be in the time remaining to us, which is not yet determined, but let's say it is 20 minutes
at the maximum, for all five of you to give testimony. that is a challenge. but you're exceptionally bright, well educated and advanced people and so you should be able to meet it and we will start with you, mr. pratt. >> and incidentally, the questions will be submitted from the committee members to all of you. >> chairman rockefeller, members of the committee. thank you for this opportunity to appear for you today. i'm stuart pratt, the consumer -- the chairman of consumer data. >> we know that. get right to the point. >> whether it is counterterrorism efforts, locating a child who has been kidnapped, preventing a violent criminal from completing the
job, databases, software, analytical tools are critical to how we manage risk in this country and consumers are treated fairly and protect victims from violent and white collar crimes. let me skip some of the examples. those are in the record. i think this committee has some tremendous opportunity before it here today. first of all, they can fill an important gap by ensuring all u.s. businesses that are not already subject to data security for personal information are in the future, cdia's on record for securing personal information and we're pleased to have this opportunity to affirm this position again today. second, congress can complete the good work of 48 states by creating a much-needed national standard that ensures they are treated in the same way no matter where they live.
new law regarding data security and data breach notification should be designed to be in line with current laws which are already robust and effective. they are already subject to an appropriate standard for securing sensitive, personal information. it is important that new law not interfere or alter or add to the requirements in the safeguards rule. this same principle applies to other sectors that have been subjected to their data security duties. this new law should fill gaps ensuring all personal information is protected. they are already subjected to a data breach standard. these sectors should be exempt
for having to comply with a new standard. the new standard should fill a gap. in the past, bills have tried to eliminate the problems. however these intelligence often fall short. getting these exemptions right is important it is a new duties for data security data breach are enacted. congress must also avoid creating a 51st state law enacting strong duties for securing personal information. it accuracy true national standard for u.s. businesses, especially small businesses. finally, we would urge the committee to exclude privacy issues which are not relevant to data security or data breach notification. the members limit the variety of laws that limit their businesses today including the fair credit
reporting act, and more. we urge this committee to -- such as provisions that regulate entitys with the duty to -- sensitive information and provide notices where there has been a breach of data. privacy can even interfere with the development of data which is used to prevent fraud and identity theft and risk. it will benefit consumers by establishing a national standard and ensuring businesses can comply, which is always their highest goal. thank you, mr. chairman . >> thank you. >> thank you chairman and members of the committee. i'm going to skip over the intro and jump right into it. tech logical advances have created a fantastic tool for consumeers to use. however privacy is still important and relevant today.
even in today's age of extensive sharing, few people would think all information about them should be available to everyone for every conceivable purpose. 82% of respondants were concerned that companies may be passing along their personal information to third parties without their permission. it is a significant barrier to the adoption of new technology which is in turn harms commerce and discourages innovation. the commercial priversi bill of rights introduced by senators kerry and mccain has standards that would give consumers more control over their personal information. the framework is the fair information practice principles. opt out requirements, access and accuracy requirements and the principle of privacy by design. we support the bill to focus on sensitive information, including information about health and rgts affiliation. companies handling such
information must first get a consumer's affirmative consent. it would protect a young woman suffering from bulimia that her information would be passed along the advertisers. this will increase the likelihood that bad actors are caught and punished. while the legislation leaves out an important foundation for better practicing, we look forward to strengthening the measures to provide the consumers with more transparency and control. we provide them an opt out for its collection. in addition, we are concerned that the extensive language could force state laws that seek to protect consumers beyond the intended scope of this bill.
consumers union supports chairman rockefeller's do not track online act. public support for a do not track option is particularly high at this moment. according to the poll i mentioned before, 81% of respondants agree they should be able to permanently opt out of internet tracking. unfortunately marketers currently can and do ignore consumers' do not track choices. this is why chairman rockefeller's bill is a much needed component. taken together it would give consumers strong privacy protection and meaningful choice in the way their information is collected and used. it also means safeguarding data against unauthorized breaches. it will protect consume rs by requiring strong data security practices as well as
notification in case s of breach. to provide at least two years of free credit reports. we're particularly pleased with the provisions that instruct information brokers to maximize accuracy and accessibility of their records and to provide consumers with information. they prefer consumers be notified of a breach. however, we can accept giving an exemption whenever a company demonstrates no reasonable risk to the consumer. we urge this committee not to further weaken notification requirements. thank you for your time and i would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you, mr. schaaf. i want to apologize to everyone about this travesty of scheduling. it is not fair to you or fair to us or everyone in line all the way down to the basement to get
into this hearing and we are all being shortchanged because of votes. we usually make one vote a day. for some reason we're going to have five votes. it is totally unfair to everybody in this room. please proceed, sir. >> thank you, chairman rockefeller and other members of this committee. my name is tim schaaf. i'm deeply responsible for -- chiefly responsible for the business and technical aspects of sony's playstation network, online services that allow consumers to access movies and television shows and video games. millions of our customers were recently the victims of an increasingly common crime, cyberattack. regarding the attack initially anonymous, the underground group
associated with last year's wicky leaks cybera-- wikileaks cyberattack. during or shortly after those attacks, one or more highly skilled hackers infiltrated the servers of the playstation network. sony online entertainment have always made concerted and substantial efforts to maintain and improve the data security systems that we utilize. we hired respected and experienced cybersecurity persons to enhance against attacks. unfortunate we cannot foresee every potentially cybersecurity threat. throughout this time, we felt the keen sense of responsibility to our consumers. we shut down the networks to
protect against further unauthorized activity. we notified our customers promptly when we had specification, accurate and useful information. we thanked our customers for their patience and loyalty and addressed their concerns arising from this breach with free identity theft protection and insurance programs for u.s. and other customers as well as a welcome back -- for subscription, games and other services. let me address one of the specific issues you are considering today. notification of consumers when data breaches occur. laws and common sense provide for companies to investigate breaches, gather the facts and then report data losses publicly. if you reverse that order, issuing vague or speculative statements before you have specific or reliable information, you either send false alarms or so many alarms these warnings will be ignored. we therefore support balanced
federal breach legislation and look forward to working with the committee on the particulars of the bill. by working together to enact meaningful cybersecurity legislation we can limit the threat posed to all and by simultaneously moving forward, we can ensure that consumers are empowered with the necessary information and tools to protect themselves from these signer criminals. thank you -- cybercriminals. thank you very much. >> thank you, chairman rockefeller and members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. i would like to stress two points. first, policy making in this area and second, the privacy and security are different things and therefore should be dealt with separately. the privacy debate has engendered strong opinions but little data or analysis. policy makers need to have facts about the practices prevalent in the marketplace. to my knowledge, the data are
from 2001. in addition to basic data, the benefits and cost policy proposals need to be evaluated to ensure they improve consumer welfare. for example, some proposals are likely to reduce the value of the internet as an advertising medium both for firms and consumers and in the process reduce the availability to be enjoyed by all internet users. some proposals also may not produce the intended results. for example, the idea for a do not track mechanism comes from the telemarketing do not call list, which has been very popular. the effects are quite different. do not call lists produces unwanted marketing solicitations. a do not track could have the oppositefect with skirmse receiving a greater number of --
consumers receiving a greater number of ads. >> that are less well targeted to their interests. >> ok. >> security presents different issues than privacy. people may be quite comfortable with the intended uses of their information but worried about unintended uses and want their information to be secure. identity theft is probably their primary security concern. total identity fraud in 2010 was at its lowest level in eight years. excessive control of information may increase the risk of identity theft by making it more difficult for sellers to determine if a potential buyer is fraudulent. there are two general responses to data breaches in relate fraud. improve security to reduce the likelihood that such events will
happen and notification of the victims in the event that they do happen. data breaches and identity frauds are extremely costly to the firms involved, which gives companies a strong incentive to spend money on data security. it is therefore unclear that government action in this area is warranted. the sentence for notification may be less strong and a notification requirement would make people better off is the question. one thing to be concerned about is that consumers receive more notices they may become afraid to do business online. this would be an unfortunate response because online commerce is safer than offline commerce. perhaps the most significant value would be preempting the patch work of state laws. for that reason, the bill could
yield savings to the firms and consumers. the privacy and data security debates are extremely important to the future of the digital economy and the innovation in the united states but unfortunately they are taking place largely in a vacuum. without substantially better data analysis there is no way of knowing whether the proposals will improve consumer welfare or not. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. taylor. >> chairman rockefeller, members of the committee, h.p. commends the committee and is looking forward to balancing. i would like to talk today about technology, trust and privacy. we're live at a time where reliance on technology is ever increasing. our business and personal lives are starting to merge.
consumers are more dependent on mobile device and they have a growing expectation that companies are going to be accountable that respect and protect the information that we collect, use and maintain. h.p. firmly believes our ability to succeed in the marketplace depends on earning and keeping our customers' trust. we believe the companies need to do more and when asked or are quested, to be able to demonstrate their capacity to uphold the obligations and the commitments that make. the program includes our privacy advisory tool that integrates all of our commitments into a tool that helps to guide us. it looks at requirements, risks and other considerations. we are able to hold every employee accountable.
h.p. is a strong proponent of u.s. privacy legislation. we firmly believe that it is time for the u.s. to establish a comprehensive flexible legal framework that works to protect consumer privacy. we believe consumers are expecting it. businesses need it and the economy will be better for it. h.p. also believes in corporate self-regulation. the possibility of programs as outlined in the kerry-mccain bill. it forces companies to contend with differing and often conflicting regulations. this is what we strongly support the initiatives like senator pryor stated. it would set a national preemptive standard. we believe that the adoption of new innovation depends on
companies acting in an accountable manner. no one, not corporation, certainly not consumers, by a lack of confidence in the security and privacy of personal information. at h.p., we believe that consumer trust comes from good transparency and providing meaningful choice. this is why we support the concepts in senator rockefeller's do not track legislation. we continue to urge policy makers to find ways to establish baseline federal legislation that will articulate expectations for all organizations. if more and more services are delivered through mobile devices such as applications, it is going to become even more important that we have a consistent baseline standard that will strengthen that chain of accountability. and unify regulations that are currently in existence. consumer strust a precious
commodity that must be protected through good stewardship and robust privacy programs. establish a unifying federal baseline standard. we believe that it is both a win for consumers as well as industry as a whole. thank you for your time and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. that was very clear and well presented. i want to apologize once again. this has not been the order of what has happened. you have a committee hearing on the subject as important as this, you come far distanceses, many of you. you give your testimony but let me give you some solace. actually getting written questions from members and then you having the chance to answer them at length or not at length, whatever your choice, sometimes works better than us asking questions and then you know, the
>> coming up next on c-span. president obama holds a news conference at the white house. then "washington journal" followed by a senate homeland security hearing on afghanistan reconstruction contracts. >> this fourth of july three-day weekend on american history tv on c-span 3, we'll visit the smithsonian museum of natural
history to learn about a government expedition to circumnavigate the globe and their treasure which became the foundation of the smithsonian institution. former first lady laura bush on her time in the white house and her memoir spoken from the heart and mike mccurry discusses jsks' relationship with the press. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history. >> every saturday in july, hear supreme court oral arguments on spnch span radio. cases on equal protection, including sexual orientation and gender. mississippi university for women versus hogan. tune into c-span radio. and online at c-span radio.org.
>> now available, c-span's congressional directory. a complete guide to the 112th congress. inside new and returning house and senate members. twitter addresses, district maps and committee assignments and information on the white house, supreme court justices and governors. order liner line at c-span -- online at c-span.org/shop. >> yesterday president obama held his first press conference in three months. he urges congress to raise the federal debt before an august 2 delind answered reporters' questions about the economy and military operations in libya. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. i just want to say a few words about the economy before i take your questions.
families are wondering how they deal with a broken refrigerator or how they are going to finance their kids' college education and also worrying about the possibility of layoffs. the struggles of middle class families were a big problem before the recession hit in 2007. they were not created overnight and the truth is our economic challenges are not going to be solved overnight. but there are more steps that we can take right now that would help businesses create jobs here in america. today our administration is trying to take those steps so we're reviewing government regulations so that we can fix any rules in place that are an unnecessary burden on business. we're working with the private sector to get small businesses
and startups the financing they need to grow and expand. and because the partnership that we have launched with businesses and community colleges, 500,000 workers will be able to receive the right skills and training for manufacturing jobs in companies all across america. jobs that companies are looking to fill. in addition to the steps that my administration can take on our own, there are also things that congress can do right now that will help create good jobs. right now congress can send me a bill that would make it easier for entrepreneurs to ent a new product or idea. we can't give ino vators a big leg up when it comes to opening new businesses and creating new jobs. that's something congress can do right now. they can send me a bill that puts construction workers on the job rebuilding roads and brings. by providing loans to private
companies and states and local governments on the basis of merit and not politics. that is pending in congress right now. right now congress can advance a set of trade agreements that would allow american businesses to sell more of their good and service to countries in asia and south america. it would support tens of thousand s of american jobs while helping those adversely affected by trade. that is pending before congress right now. and right now, we can give middle class families the security of knowing the tax cut i signed in december will be there for one more year. so there are a number of steps that my administration is taking but there are also a number of steps that congress could be taking right now on items that historically have had bipartisan support and would help put more americans back to work. many of these ideas have been tied up in congress for sometime.
all of them enjoyed bipartisan support and all of them could help grow the economy. so i urge congress to act on these ideas now. of course, one of the most important and urgent things we can do for the economy is something that both parties are working on right now. that is reducing our nation's deficit. for the last few weeks, the vice president has been leading negotiations with democrat and republicans on this issue and they have made some real progress in air in owing down the differences. -- narrowing down the differences. everyone also knows we'll need to do more to close the deficit. we can't get to the $4 trillion in savings that we need by just cutting the 12% of the budget that pays for things like medical research and education funding and food inspectors and the weather service. and we can't just do it by making seniors pay more for
medicare. we're going to need to look at the whole budgets, as i said several months ago. we have to eliminate waste wherever we find it and make some tough decisions about priorities, meaning trimming the defense budget, tackling entimements as long as we keep faith with children and seniors. yes, we're going to have to tackle spending in the tax code. there has been a lot of discussion about revenues and raising taxes in recent weeks. i want to be clear about what we are proposing here. i spent the last two years cutting taxes for ordinary americans and i want to extend those middle class tax cuts. the tax cuts i'm proposing, we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and
corporate jet owns. -- owners. it would be nice if we could keep every tax break there is. but we've got to make some tough choices here if we want to reduce our deficit and if we choose to keep those tax breaks for billionaires and millionaires and corporate jet owners and choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we have got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. that means we've got to stop funding certain brands for medical research. that means that food safety may be compromised. that means that medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. those are the choices we have to make. the bottom line is this. any agreement to reduce our deficit is going to require
tough decisions. before we ask our seniors to pay more for health care. before we cut our childrens education. before we sacrifice our commitment to research and innovation that will help create more jobs, i think it is only fair to ask an oil company or corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys. i don't think that is real radical. i think the majority of americans agree with that. so the good news is because of the work that has been done, i think we can actually bridge our differences. i think there is a consensual framework that would allow us to make progress on our debt and do so in a way that does not hurt our economy right here and right now it is not often that washington sees both parties agree on the scale and the urgency of the challenge at hand.
nobody wants to put the credit worthiness of the united states in jeopardy. nobody wants to see the united states default. so we have got to seize this moment and we have to seize it soon. the vice president and i will continue these negotiations with both leaders of both parties in congress for as long as it takes. and we will reach a deal that will require our government to live within its mean ansd give our businesses confidence and get this economy moving. so with that, i will take your questions. i've got my list here. starting off with the associated press. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i would like to follow up on the comments you just made as you try reach a deal to cut the debt limit and reduce the deficit. republicans say flatly they republicans say flatly they won't --